Page 1
`
`
`
`Copyright 2015 SHEPARD'S(R) - 49 Citing references
`
`Neumann v. Vidal, 710 F.2d 856, 228 U.S. App. D.C. 345, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 26562, 1983-1 Trade Cas.
`(CCH) P65455 (1983)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Restrictions: Unrestricted
`FOCUS(TM) Terms: No FOCUS terms
`Print Format: FULL
`Citing Ref. Signal: Hidden
`
`SHEPARD'S SUMMARY
`
`Unrestricted Shepard's Summary
`No negative subsequent
`
`appellate history.
`Citing References:
`Abrogated as stated in (1), Overruled (1)
` Warning Analyses:
`
`
`Cautionary Analyses: Criticized (1), Distinguished (4), Not Followed (1)
`Positive Analyses:
`
`Followed (1)
`
`Other Sources:
`Law Reviews (3), Treatises (5), Court Documents (17)
`
`
`
`HN1 (2), HN2 (1), HN3 (7), HN4 (7)
`LexisNexis Headnotes:
`
`
`PRIOR HISTORY ( 1 citing reference )
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1. Neumann v. Vidal, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9516, 1982-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) P64762 (D.D.C. May 27, 1982)
`
`
`
`SUBSEQUENT APPELLATE HISTORY ( 3 citing references )
`
`
`
`
`
`Reversed by (CITATION YOU ENTERED):
`Neumann v. Vidal, 710 F.2d 856, 228 U.S. App. D.C. 345, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 26562, 1983-1 Trade
`Cas. (CCH) P65455 (1983)
`
`On remand at:
`Neumann v. Reinforced Earth Co., 594 F. Supp. 139, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15196, 1984-2 Trade Cas.
`(CCH) P66171 (D.D.C. 1984)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`
`3.
`
`
`4.
`
`
`Affirmed by:
`Neumann v. Reinforced Earth Co., 786 F.2d 424, 252 U.S. App. D.C. 11, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS
`23093, 1986-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P67002, 229 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 383 (1986)
`
`Writ of certiorari denied:
`Neumann v. Reinforced Earth Co., 479 U.S. 851, 107 S. Ct. 181, 93 L. Ed. 2d 116, 1986 U.S.
`LEXIS 3861, 55 U.S.L.W. 3235 (1986)
`
`
`
`
`CITING DECISIONS ( 20 citing decisions )
`
`1ST CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS
`
`
`CFAD VI 1057 - 0001
`CFAD VI v. CELGENE
`IPR2015-01102
`
`

`
`SHEPARD'S® - 710 F.2d 856 - 49 Citing References
`
`Page 2
`
`5. Cited by:
`Poduska v. Ward, 895 F.2d 854, 1990 U.S. App. LEXIS 1668 (1st Cir. Mass. 1990) LexisNexis Headnotes
`
`HN3
`895 F.2d 854 p.856
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7TH CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS
`
`
`6. Distinguished by:
` Grip-Pak, Inc. v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc., 651 F. Supp. 1482, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20971, 1986-2 Trade
`Cas. (CCH) P67295 (N.D. Ill. 1986)
`651 F. Supp. 1482 p.1502
`
`
`
`9TH CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS
`
`
`7. Cited by:
`Program Engineering, Inc. v. California Jockey Club, 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20199, 1984-1 Trade Cas.
`
`(CCH) P65828 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 20, 1984)
`
`
`10TH CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS
`
`
`
`
`
`
`8. Cited by:
`In re Independent Serv. Orgs. Antitrust Litig., 964 F. Supp. 1454, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6671 (D. Kan.
`
`1997) LexisNexis Headnotes HN2
`964 F. Supp. 1454 p.1467
`
`
`
`11TH CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURTS
`
`
`9. Cited by:
` Coachmen Indus. v. Royal Surplus Lines Ins. Co., 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46134 (M.D. Fla. June 25, 2007)
`LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
`2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46134
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D.C. CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS
`
`
`10. Cited by:
` Halstead v. Gov't Emples. Ins. Co., 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 27955 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 17, 2009) LexisNexis
`Headnotes HN3
`2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 27955
`
`11. Distinguished by:
`Scott v. District of Columbia, 101 F.3d 748, 322 U.S. App. D.C. 75, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 31236 (1996)
`
`LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
`101 F.3d 748 p.756
`322 U.S. App. D.C. 75 p.83
`
`12. Cited by:
` Whelan v. Abell, 953 F.2d 663, 293 U.S. App. D.C. 267, 1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 417, 21 Fed. R. Serv. 3d
`(Callaghan) 1273 (1992)
`953 F.2d 663 p.670
`
`CFAD VI 1057 - 0002
`
`

`
`SHEPARD'S® - 710 F.2d 856 - 49 Citing References
`
`Page 3
`
`953 F.2d 663 p.671
`293 U.S. App. D.C. 267 p.274
`293 U.S. App. D.C. 267 p.275
`
`13. Cited by:
` Neumann v. Reinforced Earth Co., 786 F.2d 424, 252 U.S. App. D.C. 11, 1986 U.S. App. LEXIS 23093,
`1986-1 Trade Cas. (CCH) P67002, 229 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 383 (1986) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
`
`
`
`D.C. CIRCUIT - U.S. DISTRICT COURT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14.
`
`
`Followed by:
`E. Sav. Bank, FSB v. Papageorge, 31 F. Supp. 3d 1, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30777 (D.D.C. 2014)
`LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN4
`31 F. Supp. 3d 1 p.19
`
`15. Abrogated as stated in:
` Houlahan v. World Wide Ass'n of Specialty Programs & Sch., 677 F. Supp. 2d 195, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
`546, 38 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1279 (D.D.C. 2010) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3, HN4
`677 F. Supp. 2d 195 p.199
`
`16. Overruled as stated in:
` Nader v. Democratic Nat'l Comm., 555 F. Supp. 2d 137, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 41209 (D.D.C. 2008)
`LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
`555 F. Supp. 2d 137 p.160
`
`17. Cited by:
`Bannum, Inc. v. Citizens for a Safe Ward Five, Inc., 383 F. Supp. 2d 32, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16338
`
`(D.D.C. 2005) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
`383 F. Supp. 2d 32 p.46
`
`18. Cited by:
` Wise v. Glickman, 257 F. Supp. 2d 123, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5033 (D.D.C. 2003)
`257 F. Supp. 2d 123 p.129
`
`19. Not followed by:
` Harrison v. Howard Univ., 846 F. Supp. 1, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19478 (D.D.C. 1993) LexisNexis
`Headnotes HN4
`
`20. Cited by:
` Doe v. Di Genova, 642 F. Supp. 624, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22139 (D.D.C. 1986) LexisNexis Headnotes
`HN3
`642 F. Supp. 624 p.631
`
`21. Distinguished by:
`Edwards v. Consolidated Rail Corp., 567 F. Supp. 1087, 1983 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15609, 13 Fed. R. Evid.
`
`Serv. (CBC) 1678 (D.D.C. 1983) LexisNexis Headnotes HN1
`567 F. Supp. 1087 p.1113
`
`CFAD VI 1057 - 0003
`
`

`
`SHEPARD'S® - 710 F.2d 856 - 49 Citing References
`
`Page 4
`
`
`D.C. CIRCUIT - U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURTS
`
`
`
`
`22. Cited by:
`Rothenberg v. Ralph D. Kaiser Co. (In re Rothenberg), 173 B.R. 4, 1994 Bankr. LEXIS 1435 (Bankr.
`
`D.D.C. 1994) LexisNexis Headnotes HN3
`173 B.R. 4 p.9
`
`
`
`FEDERAL CIRCUIT - COURT OF APPEALS
`
`
`23. Criticized by:
`Abbott Laboratories v. Brennan, 952 F.2d 1346, 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 29978, 1991-2 Trade Cas. (CCH)
`
`P69664, 21 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1192 (Fed. Cir. 1991) LexisNexis Headnotes HN4
`952 F.2d 1346 p.1356
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`OTHER PENNSYLVANIA DECISIONS
`
`
`24. Distinguished by:
` High Concrete Structures v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co., 2004 Pa. Dist. & Cnty. Dec. LEXIS 192, 65 Pa. D. &
`C.4th 143 (2004)
`65 Pa. D. & C.4th 143 p.147
`
`
`
`LAW REVIEWS AND PERIODICALS ( 3 Citing References )
`
`
`25.
`
`ARTICLE: ANTITRUST POLICY AFTER CHICAGO., 84 Mich. L. Rev. 213 (1985)
`84 Mich. L. Rev. 213 p.263
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TREATISE CITATIONS ( 5 Citing Sources )
`
`
`26.
`
`ARTICLE: Medical Method Patents and the Fifth Amendment: Do the New Limits on Enforceability Effect a
`Taking?, 4 U. Balt. Intell. Prop. L.J. 147 (1996)
`
`27.
`
`ARTICLE: "SPECULATIVE" ANTITRUST DAMAGES, 70 Wash. L. Rev. 423 (1995)
`
`28.
`
`2-10 Antitrust Laws and Trade Regulation: Desk Edition @ 10.02
`
`29.
`
`8-161 Antitrust Laws and Trade Regulation, 2nd Edition @ 161.02
`
`30.
`
`3A-10 Chisum on Patents @ 10.09
`
`31.
`
`12A-III. Chisum on Patents 4500
`
`32.
`
`2-SEC 4000 Patent Law Digest 4500
`
`
`
`BRIEFS ( 6 Citing Briefs )
`
`
`
`
`33. HALSTEAD v. Government Emples. Ins. Co., 2010 U.S. Briefs 186, 2010 U.S. S. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 5692
`(U.S. Aug. 5, 2010)
`
`34.
`
`PETROCHEM v. MT. HAWLEY INS. CO., 2003 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 56345, 2004 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs
`LEXIS 112 (9th Cir. Jan. 15, 2004)
`
`CFAD VI 1057 - 0004
`
`

`
`SHEPARD'S® - 710 F.2d 856 - 49 Citing References
`
`Page 5
`
`PETROCHEM v. MT. HAWLEY INS. CO., an Illinois corp., 2003 U.S. 9th Cir. Briefs 56345, 2003 U.S. 9th
`Cir. Briefs LEXIS 105 (9th Cir. Nov. 17, 2003)
`
`PACIFIC GREAT LAKES CORP. v. BESSEMER & LAKE ERIE R.R. CO., 1998 OH App. Ct. Briefs 70394,
`1997 OH App. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 3 (Ohio Ct. App., Cuyahoga County Apr. 11, 1997)
`
`PACIFIC GREAT LAKES CORP. v. BESSEMER & LAKE ERIE R.R. CO., 1998 OH App. Ct. Briefs 70394,
`1997 OH App. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1 (Ohio Ct. App., Cuyahoga County Jan. 30, 1997)
`
`PACIFIC GREAT LAKES CORP. v. BESSEMER & LAKE ERIE R.R. CO., 1998 OH App. Ct. Briefs 70394,
`1996 OH App. Ct. Briefs LEXIS 1 (Ohio Ct. App., Cuyahoga County Nov. 4, 1996)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`35.
`
`36.
`
`37.
`
`38.
`
`
`
`MOTIONS ( 11 Citing Motions )
`
`
`39. HOULAHAN v. WORLD WIDE ASS'N OF SPECIALTY PROGRAM SCHS., 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
`678061, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 50613 (D.D.C. Nov. 16, 2009)
`
`40. HOULAHAN v. WORLD WIDE ASS'N OF SPECIALTY PROGRAMS & SCHS., 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
`678061, 2009 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 50615 (D.D.C. Oct. 14, 2009)
`
`41. NADER v. DEMOCRATIC NAT'L COMM., 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 728663, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct.
`Motions LEXIS 6256 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2008)
`
`42. NADER v. DEMOCRATIC NAT'L COMM., 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 728663, 2008 U.S. Dist. Ct.
`Motions LEXIS 6260 (D.D.C. Feb. 4, 2008)
`
`43. HORNBECK OFFSHORE TRANSP. v. UNITED STATES, 2007 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 1030, 2007 U.S.
`Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 74488 (D.D.C. Dec. 10, 2007)
`
`44.
`
`45.
`
`46.
`
`TRI-STATE HOSP. SUPPLY CORP. v. UNITED STATES, 2000 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 61517, 2007 U.S.
`Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 90608 (D.D.C. Mar. 30, 2007)
`
`TRI-STATE HOSP. SUPPLY CORP. v. UNITED STATES, 2000 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 61517, 2007 U.S.
`Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 90606 (D.D.C. Feb. 5, 2007)
`
`AB INITIO SOFTWARE CORP. v. INCHINGOLO, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions 10922, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct.
`Motions LEXIS 67490 (D. Mass. Sept. 20, 2006)
`
`47. HOULAHAN v. WORLD WIDE ASS'N OF SPECIALTY PROGRAM SCHS., 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
`1161, 2006 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 36040 (D.D.C. Mar. 6, 2006)
`
`48. HOULAHAN v. WORLD WIDE ASS'N OF SPECIALTY PROGRAMS SCHS., 2004 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions
`523418, 2005 U.S. Dist. Ct. Motions LEXIS 66314 (D.D.C. May 13, 2005)
`
`49.
`
`In re ZIAD AKL, 2007 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions 10026, 2008 U.S. Bankr. Ct. Motions LEXIS 8293 (Bankr.
`D.D.C. May 5, 2008)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CFAD VI 1057 - 0005